Raw LLM Responses

A couple corrections and points of controversy that need to be raised. A correlation above 0.8 is considered strong, above 0.6 is considered moderate. Correlations of 0.56, 0.43, and especially 0.20 are considered weak.  The idea of the work week measured in hours comes from the domination of timework over piecework, something that wouldn't emerge until the second industrial revolution and become dominant until the mid 20th century. It's a more modern idea than most people give it credit. It's only 4 or so generations old. Those 60 hour factory shifts were not measured by hours, but how many pieces the worker created, and each worker was payed a fixed rate per piece, and worked until they had created enough pieces to meet their expenses. The length of a shift would vary by a workers efficiency and needs rather than being a set length. The idea of a fixed length workweek was an innovation to force tired inefficient workers of the machinery so that more efficient workers could take their place and increase throughput. The existence of a 40 hour workweek today is still not universal. 30% of American workers for example are not full time. Almost all of the people in the worst and least compensated jobs are "underemployed". Machinery automates physical labor, not robotics. Machine tools take many more forms and are much older and more widely applicable. Studies about how long historical folks worked are often misquoted or misinterpreted because they try to fit work into a modern paridigm that measures mainly or only primary employment. Today this misses time spent on things like commuting, cooking, and various other chores; but historically trying to draw an apples to apples comparison this can ignore whole sectors of work such as constructing shelters, creating clothes, processing and storing food, creating cleaning supplies, cooking, corvee, ect... Depending on what you count as work, you can make strong arguments for people working less or more historically.